Love the 'fail' @ 1:52 where they claim the 'last new section of Interstate' was I-70 through Glenwood Canyon back in October of 1992. Um, what about I-73 or I-74 new build alignments? They trump I-70 on the date scale. lol.

Love the 'fail' @ 1:52 where they claim the 'last new section of Interstate' was I-70 through Glenwood Canyon back in October of 1992. Um, what about I-73 or I-74 new build alignments? They trump I-70 on the date scale. lol.

Also: I-22, much of I-49, I-69 in IN, I-41 (or at least the efforts to bring it up to standards)...........the list goes on. But then, the general press has rarely gotten their facts correct regarding transportation issues; this is simply the latest in a long history of errors -- often made in the process of proffering overly dramatic statements about the project at hand!

I'm curious about the "official" start/end of I-11. Has I-11 replaced I-515 up to the 215 interchange? Or does 515 still exist, and is also I-11 at the same time? Or do they plan on slowly phasing out I-515 signage between the new bypass and the 215 interchange and eventually the whole thing is solely known as I-11? According to Google Maps, it's still 515 and changes to I-11 around the overpass over Paradise Hills Dr?

Logged

If you used to draw freeways on your homework and got reprimanded by your Senior English teacher for doing so, you might be a road geek!

I'm curious about the "official" start/end of I-11. Has I-11 replaced I-515 up to the 215 interchange? Or does 515 still exist, and is also I-11 at the same time? Or do they plan on slowly phasing out I-515 signage between the new bypass and the 215 interchange and eventually the whole thing is solely known as I-11? According to Google Maps, it's still 515 and changes to I-11 around the overpass over Paradise Hills Dr?

I'm curious about the "official" start/end of I-11. Has I-11 replaced I-515 up to the 215 interchange? Or does 515 still exist, and is also I-11 at the same time? Or do they plan on slowly phasing out I-515 signage between the new bypass and the 215 interchange and eventually the whole thing is solely known as I-11? According to Google Maps, it's still 515 and changes to I-11 around the overpass over Paradise Hills Dr?

I-11 is supposed to be signed from the I-515 and I-215 Interchange south to the Arizona State Line. I think a signing contract is in place, but the signing itself has not taken place yet.

Love the 'fail' @ 1:52 where they claim the 'last new section of Interstate' was I-70 through Glenwood Canyon back in October of 1992. Um, what about I-73 or I-74 new build alignments? They trump I-70 on the date scale. lol.

Also: I-22, much of I-49, I-69 in IN, I-41 (or at least the efforts to bring it up to standards)...........the list goes on. But then, the general press has rarely gotten their facts correct regarding transportation issues; this is simply the latest in a long history of errors -- often made in the process of proffering overly dramatic statements about the project at hand!

Despite this, the claim has been consistently made in local media coverage—if you look at most of the LVRJ articles I've posted in this thread over the last few years, that claim is there.

I find the claim suspect as well... It may depend on how they're defining "new interstate"...

I'm curious about the "official" start/end of I-11. Has I-11 replaced I-515 up to the 215 interchange? Or does 515 still exist, and is also I-11 at the same time? Or do they plan on slowly phasing out I-515 signage between the new bypass and the 215 interchange and eventually the whole thing is solely known as I-11? According to Google Maps, it's still 515 and changes to I-11 around the overpass over Paradise Hills Dr?

I-11 is supposed to be signed from the I-515 and I-215 Interchange south to the Arizona State Line. I think a signing contract is in place, but the signing itself has not taken place yet.

It's route north from their has yet to be determined.

As of completion and opening of the Boulder City Bypass last week, I-11 is only signed from the AZ state line to the Paradise Hills/Foothills grade separation just south of the Wagon wheel/Boulder Hwy interchange and not yet signed further north. If it has been signed over I-515 up to the 215 interchange, that changeover has been suspiciously absent from the media coverage... (I'm not in Vegas to personally verify.)

NDOT received AASHTO/FHWA approval for the resigning several years ago. NDOT's current annual work program or STIP (don't remember which) includes funding for a resigning project. I'm not sure if a contract has been put out to bid or signed though...

I'm curious about the "official" start/end of I-11. Has I-11 replaced I-515 up to the 215 interchange? Or does 515 still exist, and is also I-11 at the same time? Or do they plan on slowly phasing out I-515 signage between the new bypass and the 215 interchange and eventually the whole thing is solely known as I-11? According to Google Maps, it's still 515 and changes to I-11 around the overpass over Paradise Hills Dr?

I-11 is supposed to be signed from the I-515 and I-215 Interchange south to the Arizona State Line. I think a signing contract is in place, but the signing itself has not taken place yet.

It's route north from their has yet to be determined.

As of completion and opening of the Boulder City Bypass last week, I-11 is only signed from the AZ state line to the Paradise Hills/Foothills grade separation just south of the Wagon wheel/Boulder Hwy interchange and not yet signed further north. If it has been signed over I-515 up to the 215 interchange, that changeover has been suspiciously absent from the media coverage... (I'm not in Vegas to personally verify.)

NDOT received AASHTO/FHWA approval for the resigning several years ago. NDOT's current annual work program or STIP (don't remember which) includes funding for a resigning project. I'm not sure if a contract has been put out to bid or signed though...

Is this resigning project going to include renumbering the exits on I-515 south of the 215 junction? I believe they're currently based on US 95, not 93.

I'm curious about the "official" start/end of I-11. Has I-11 replaced I-515 up to the 215 interchange? Or does 515 still exist, and is also I-11 at the same time? Or do they plan on slowly phasing out I-515 signage between the new bypass and the 215 interchange and eventually the whole thing is solely known as I-11? According to Google Maps, it's still 515 and changes to I-11 around the overpass over Paradise Hills Dr?

I-11 is supposed to be signed from the I-515 and I-215 Interchange south to the Arizona State Line. I think a signing contract is in place, but the signing itself has not taken place yet.

It's route north from their has yet to be determined.

As of completion and opening of the Boulder City Bypass last week, I-11 is only signed from the AZ state line to the Paradise Hills/Foothills grade separation just south of the Wagon wheel/Boulder Hwy interchange and not yet signed further north. If it has been signed over I-515 up to the 215 interchange, that changeover has been suspiciously absent from the media coverage... (I'm not in Vegas to personally verify.)

NDOT received AASHTO/FHWA approval for the resigning several years ago. NDOT's current annual work program or STIP (don't remember which) includes funding for a resigning project. I'm not sure if a contract has been put out to bid or signed though...

Based on this video, I-515 still exists north of Wagonwheel/Boulder Highway. I'm assuming NDOT will change exit numbers and mileposts to reflect I-11 whenever the changeover happens south of I-215.

Based on this video, I-515 still exists north of Wagonwheel/Boulder Highway. I'm assuming NDOT will change exit numbers and mileposts to reflect I-11 whenever the changeover happens south of I-215.

The information I've seen is not clear. It simply states it's a resigning project.

I imagine it will include completely new signage reassurance shields, replacing I-515 shields at freeway entrance assemblies, and updating to BGSs on I-215/SR 564. Some of the BGSs along this southern section of I-515 are quite tired as well (some possibly dating to original construction circa 1994-95), so there might be full sign replacements.

Changing of mileposts and exit numbers is much more uncertain. I-515 has always used the US 95 mileposting and exit numbering, so I'm not sure how keen NDOT will be to change some of that—especially given that the final I-11 route through Las Vegas is not yet decided. If they were to select the eastern bypass route, renumbering I-515 would be pointless as I-11 would diverge east around Railroad Pass (current northern terminus) anyway. <see the "Interstate 11, through Vegas and points north" thread for further discussion on that>

Based on this video, I-515 still exists north of Wagonwheel/Boulder Highway. I'm assuming NDOT will change exit numbers and mileposts to reflect I-11 whenever the changeover happens south of I-215.

The information I've seen is not clear. It simply states it's a resigning project.

I imagine it will include completely new signage reassurance shields, replacing I-515 shields at freeway entrance assemblies, and updating to BGSs on I-215/SR 564. Some of the BGSs along this southern section of I-515 are quite tired as well (some possibly dating to original construction circa 1994-95), so there might be full sign replacements.

Changing of mileposts and exit numbers is much more uncertain. I-515 has always used the US 95 mileposting and exit numbering, so I'm not sure how keen NDOT will be to change some of that—especially given that the final I-11 route through Las Vegas is not yet decided. If they were to select the eastern bypass route, renumbering I-515 would be pointless as I-11 would diverge east around Railroad Pass (current northern terminus) anyway. <see the "Interstate 11, through Vegas and points north" thread for further discussion on that>

Regardless of which option is chosen for I-11 north of Henderson, it will NOT affect exit number assignments southeast of the Beltway, as they are reckoned from south to north. So NDOT has NO excuse not to go ahead now and reassign the numbers for the 4 exits along former I-515 (now I-11). Other locales have had exit numbers reassigned (hell, INDOT did that for 157 miles on "Classic I-69" from Indy to Michigan), the locals will adapt and get used to it!

BTW, the Eastern Bypass route option was DOA, and I believe it has been removed from any further consideration.

BTW, the Eastern Bypass route option was DOA, and I believe it has been removed from any further consideration.

IIRC, when the 215 beltway was being planned, the eastern side was sited relatively close-in -- essentially directly south from the north 215/15 interchange; that area is now inundated with housing and commercial development and thus no longer being considered. However, the suggested I-11 corridor was further east and actually along the edge (or even within for part of its length) the Lake Mead recreation area, well past the outskirts of the housing tracts. That actually diverged from the current alignment near Railroad Pass (rather than the current 215/515 junction), and apparently has some degree of local support -- and is still in the corridor "mix", although an exact alignment has yet to be identified. It's likely any support for this eastern concept stems from the desire to divert through traffic away from the already congested downtown area so as not to add any additional long-distance traffic to what's already there. Since any outflung eastern corridor would likely entail considerable expense due to less-than-favorable terrain, construction would probably not be programmed in the near term. IMO, an eastern corridor is simply a diversion from the task of getting I-11 through the area; I'd simply run it straight down I-515/US 95 and let the western 215 beltway handle any "overages".

BTW, the Eastern Bypass route option was DOA, and I believe it has been removed from any further consideration.

IIRC, when the 215 beltway was being planned, the eastern side was sited relatively close-in -- essentially directly south from the north 215/15 interchange; that area is now inundated with housing and commercial development and thus no longer being considered. However, the suggested I-11 corridor was further east and actually along the edge (or even within for part of its length) the Lake Mead recreation area, well past the outskirts of the housing tracts. That actually diverged from the current alignment near Railroad Pass (rather than the current 215/515 junction), and apparently has some degree of local support -- and is still in the corridor "mix", although an exact alignment has yet to be identified. It's likely any support for this eastern concept stems from the desire to divert through traffic away from the already congested downtown area so as not to add any additional long-distance traffic to what's already there. Since any outflung eastern corridor would likely entail considerable expense due to less-than-favorable terrain, construction would probably not be programmed in the near term. IMO, an eastern corridor is simply a diversion from the task of getting I-11 through the area; I'd simply run it straight down I-515/US 95 and let the western 215 beltway handle any "overages".

Yeah, the 215 East Leg proposal was more of a 415 – it came in near Russell Road and then north along Lamb or Nellis to I-15. The I-11 east alignment proposal, I believe, goes east of Frenchman’s Mountain through some sensitive environmental areas. So……… yeah. Not happening. I do tend to think that a “93 bypass” for Utah-Arizona freight traffic would be helpful, but run from Mesquite to Kingman, east of Gold Butte as a 2-lane highway instead.

BTW, the Eastern Bypass route option was DOA, and I believe it has been removed from any further consideration.

IIRC, when the 215 beltway was being planned, the eastern side was sited relatively close-in -- essentially directly south from the north 215/15 interchange; that area is now inundated with housing and commercial development and thus no longer being considered. However, the suggested I-11 corridor was further east and actually along the edge (or even within for part of its length) the Lake Mead recreation area, well past the outskirts of the housing tracts. That actually diverged from the current alignment near Railroad Pass (rather than the current 215/515 junction), and apparently has some degree of local support -- and is still in the corridor "mix", although an exact alignment has yet to be identified. It's likely any support for this eastern concept stems from the desire to divert through traffic away from the already congested downtown area so as not to add any additional long-distance traffic to what's already there. Since any outflung eastern corridor would likely entail considerable expense due to less-than-favorable terrain, construction would probably not be programmed in the near term. IMO, an eastern corridor is simply a diversion from the task of getting I-11 through the area; I'd simply run it straight down I-515/US 95 and let the western 215 beltway handle any "overages".

Yeah, the 215 East Leg proposal was more of a 415 – it came in near Russell Road and then north along Lamb or Nellis to I-15. The I-11 east alignment proposal, I believe, goes east of Frenchman’s Mountain through some sensitive environmental areas. So……… yeah. Not happening. I do tend to think that a “93 bypass” for Utah-Arizona freight traffic would be helpful, but run from Mesquite to Kingman, east of Gold Butte as a 2-lane highway instead.

To expand on this tangent for a moment: When the 215 beltway was planned in the early 1990s, it was always planned as a three-quarter beltway. The east side of the Las Vegas Valley was way built up well before the other sides, whereas significant portions of the current beltway was able to be located along right of way that was largely undeveloped at the time. The east leg beltway feasibility study was initiated in the early/mid 2000s, and idea eliminated because ROW was prohibitively expensive.

The east I-11 corridor is still in contention, and is as Sparker and Sub-Urbanite describe. Given it passes through Lake Mead NRA and tougher environment/terrain, I agree that it is the least likely option to be selected.

I think I mentioned elsewhere that a study report for I-11 in Vegas should be forthcoming relatively soon.

BTW, the Eastern Bypass route option was DOA, and I believe it has been removed from any further consideration.

IIRC, when the 215 beltway was being planned, the eastern side was sited relatively close-in -- essentially directly south from the north 215/15 interchange; that area is now inundated with housing and commercial development and thus no longer being considered. However, the suggested I-11 corridor was further east and actually along the edge (or even within for part of its length) the Lake Mead recreation area, well past the outskirts of the housing tracts. That actually diverged from the current alignment near Railroad Pass (rather than the current 215/515 junction), and apparently has some degree of local support -- and is still in the corridor "mix", although an exact alignment has yet to be identified. It's likely any support for this eastern concept stems from the desire to divert through traffic away from the already congested downtown area so as not to add any additional long-distance traffic to what's already there. Since any outflung eastern corridor would likely entail considerable expense due to less-than-favorable terrain, construction would probably not be programmed in the near term. IMO, an eastern corridor is simply a diversion from the task of getting I-11 through the area; I'd simply run it straight down I-515/US 95 and let the western 215 beltway handle any "overages".

Yeah, the 215 East Leg proposal was more of a 415 – it came in near Russell Road and then north along Lamb or Nellis to I-15. The I-11 east alignment proposal, I believe, goes east of Frenchman’s Mountain through some sensitive environmental areas. So……… yeah. Not happening. I do tend to think that a “93 bypass” for Utah-Arizona freight traffic would be helpful, but run from Mesquite to Kingman, east of Gold Butte as a 2-lane highway instead.

Pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease build this road. This will help travel between Utah and Arizona so much, probably moreso than extending I-17, especially during the winter months when US 89 is snowy and icy.

BTW, the Eastern Bypass route option was DOA, and I believe it has been removed from any further consideration.

IIRC, when the 215 beltway was being planned, the eastern side was sited relatively close-in -- essentially directly south from the north 215/15 interchange; that area is now inundated with housing and commercial development and thus no longer being considered. However, the suggested I-11 corridor was further east and actually along the edge (or even within for part of its length) the Lake Mead recreation area, well past the outskirts of the housing tracts. That actually diverged from the current alignment near Railroad Pass (rather than the current 215/515 junction), and apparently has some degree of local support -- and is still in the corridor "mix", although an exact alignment has yet to be identified. It's likely any support for this eastern concept stems from the desire to divert through traffic away from the already congested downtown area so as not to add any additional long-distance traffic to what's already there. Since any outflung eastern corridor would likely entail considerable expense due to less-than-favorable terrain, construction would probably not be programmed in the near term. IMO, an eastern corridor is simply a diversion from the task of getting I-11 through the area; I'd simply run it straight down I-515/US 95 and let the western 215 beltway handle any "overages".

Yeah, the 215 East Leg proposal was more of a 415 – it came in near Russell Road and then north along Lamb or Nellis to I-15. The I-11 east alignment proposal, I believe, goes east of Frenchman’s Mountain through some sensitive environmental areas. So……… yeah. Not happening. I do tend to think that a “93 bypass” for Utah-Arizona freight traffic would be helpful, but run from Mesquite to Kingman, east of Gold Butte as a 2-lane highway instead.

Pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease build this road. This will help travel between Utah and Arizona so much, probably moreso than extending I-17, especially during the winter months when US 89 is snowy and icy.

There actually used to be one going back to the 1926 map- https://arizonaroads.com/maps/1926-1.jpgSeems there was a road from Hackberry (just east of Kingman) up to St. George. I tried to look at a current aerial to figure out the remnants of that road and what's left of it and can't quite figure it out. I think because Lake Mead wasn't there that's why. It does look like it could be the same road that goes up to Meadview, AZ today but ends.

There actually used to be one going back to the 1926 map- https://arizonaroads.com/maps/1926-1.jpgSeems there was a road from Hackberry (just east of Kingman) up to St. George. I tried to look at a current aerial to figure out the remnants of that road and what's left of it and can't quite figure it out. I think because Lake Mead wasn't there that's why. It does look like it could be the same road that goes up to Meadview, AZ today but ends.

That was the former Pearce Ferry, but not the modern road through Meadview. According to old topos, the road shown on the 1926 Rand McNally went south alongside Grapevine Wash and Iron Spring Wash, then crossed the pass at Willow Spring and continued southeasterly to Hackberry. Much of it is a 4WD trail on modern topos, but nothing appears south of the pass.

Logged

Florida route log | pre-1945I will do my best to not make America hate again.Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

BTW, the Eastern Bypass route option was DOA, and I believe it has been removed from any further consideration.

IIRC, when the 215 beltway was being planned, the eastern side was sited relatively close-in -- essentially directly south from the north 215/15 interchange; that area is now inundated with housing and commercial development and thus no longer being considered. However, the suggested I-11 corridor was further east and actually along the edge (or even within for part of its length) the Lake Mead recreation area, well past the outskirts of the housing tracts. That actually diverged from the current alignment near Railroad Pass (rather than the current 215/515 junction), and apparently has some degree of local support -- and is still in the corridor "mix", although an exact alignment has yet to be identified. It's likely any support for this eastern concept stems from the desire to divert through traffic away from the already congested downtown area so as not to add any additional long-distance traffic to what's already there. Since any outflung eastern corridor would likely entail considerable expense due to less-than-favorable terrain, construction would probably not be programmed in the near term. IMO, an eastern corridor is simply a diversion from the task of getting I-11 through the area; I'd simply run it straight down I-515/US 95 and let the western 215 beltway handle any "overages".

Yeah, the 215 East Leg proposal was more of a 415 – it came in near Russell Road and then north along Lamb or Nellis to I-15. The I-11 east alignment proposal, I believe, goes east of Frenchman’s Mountain through some sensitive environmental areas. So……… yeah. Not happening. I do tend to think that a “93 bypass” for Utah-Arizona freight traffic would be helpful, but run from Mesquite to Kingman, east of Gold Butte as a 2-lane highway instead.

Pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease build this road. This will help travel between Utah and Arizona so much, probably moreso than extending I-17, especially during the winter months when US 89 is snowy and icy.

There actually used to be one going back to the 1926 map- https://arizonaroads.com/maps/1926-1.jpgSeems there was a road from Hackberry (just east of Kingman) up to St. George. I tried to look at a current aerial to figure out the remnants of that road and what's left of it and can't quite figure it out. I think because Lake Mead wasn't there that's why. It does look like it could be the same road that goes up to Meadview, AZ today but ends.

I’d love to see that built, but I just don’t see it happening. In addition to the tremendous cost of another major bridge over the Colorado, most of that corridor now lies within the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. That’s probably a huge red flag for any future highway construction, especially as this would be a completely new highway corridor.

I’d love to see that built, but I just don’t see it happening. In addition to the tremendous cost of another major bridge over the Colorado, most of that corridor now lies within the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. That’s probably a huge red flag for any future highway construction, especially as this would be a completely new highway corridor.

I don't doubt that this belongs in the land of fictional highways. But it seems to me that a bridge over the Colorado at Pearce Ferry could be pretty low impact and relatively inexpensive (since the grade is pretty shallow, a simple viaduct might be enough) and a route connecting up the Grand Wash to Gold Butte Road would keep out of the areas protected by the public.

I’d love to see that built, but I just don’t see it happening. In addition to the tremendous cost of another major bridge over the Colorado, most of that corridor now lies within the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. That’s probably a huge red flag for any future highway construction, especially as this would be a completely new highway corridor.

I don't doubt that this belongs in the land of fictional highways. But it seems to me that a bridge over the Colorado at Pearce Ferry could be pretty low impact and relatively inexpensive (since the grade is pretty shallow, a simple viaduct might be enough) and a route connecting up the Grand Wash to Gold Butte Road would keep out of the areas protected by the public.

Low impact? You are putting a major road through an environmentally sensitive area with at least one endangered species (a tortoise). The north shore is nothing but rough terrain requiring a lot of small bridges or box culverts over washes/arroyos (or risk the road washing out). The south side requires a lot of destroying along the ROW to come down from the plateau. Alternatively, you could build a higher bridge but you've shot down your inexpensive argument. The cost to mitigate the environmental impact skyrockets the cost. There may also be some tribal lands involved.

A far east bypass from Boulder City along the west shore of Lake Mead, past the gypsum mine, and connecting to I-15 north of the Speedway would likely be about the same cost and serve more people. It would be significantly shorter, still serve as a bypass to LV, and also help those using Lake Mead. It also doesn't require two states to cooperate (see Bella Vista). It could probably justify a four lane expressway or better for much of it.

I will quit now because we are definitely in fictional here. But understand that your definition of low impact to the environment is not what counts. It's what is determined by an EIS and just a cursory bit of research shows quite an impact.

I'm a little surprised that the Tillman bridge requires tall vehicles to travel in the left lane. There's no apparent reason for it (besides possibly cross-winds), but that's not a common sight outside of work zones.

Most people don't realize that forward motion amplifies the side forces from a crosswind. Truck drivers are supposed to know that, and slow way down, but I doubt most RV drivers do. In extreme crosswinds, I've seen both tractor-trailers and campers blown over on their sides along freeways. Better to land on the roadbed and cause a traffic jam than to go over the side of the bridge and plunge 800 feet to a grisly death.

But they should probably use an electric sign that only puts up that message when the wind is up.

Are there occasions when the Tillman Bridge is completely closed to heavy trucks and other tall vehicles due to high winds? Last I was out there, there were occasional high wind closures, and so the US 93 truck bypass route through Laughlin still had some signs even though most of the time trucks could use the Tillman Bridge.

A related question: does that truck bypass route still exist in some form, or have the DOTs figured out how to managed wind problems with the left-lane restriction and so don't need the bypass anymore?

I haven't seen a confirmed open date, but it should be relatively soon.

Not sure if the old section of US 95 that has become SR 173 will be signed or unsigned—it's an interesting signage question as there are merits for doing either way (I haven't been out there to check since the new year). I'm more curious about whether old US 93 will have a new state highway number or recycle one of the old numbers that it may have had in the federal aid numbering system (500 or 501). NDOT's log actually has two entries for SR 173, with one appearing to be erroneous, but still shows US 93 in Boulder City and not moved to the I-11 alignment.

The reports I have seen all said "April 2018" for the US 95 interchange partial opening, which is why I asked since the month is almost over. The recent photos I have viewed do not show any State Route signage along the "orphin" section of 95, but do show "TO Business US 93 - Boulder City" on one of the BGSs. The good news is that when the re-routing of 95 is done, anyone heading NB who misses the new turnoff can easily use the "soon to be OLD" route to get back on track. But SB US 95 travelers had better not miss Exit 14 once the full bypass is completed, unless they want to make a 25-mile side trip! Probably a good thing that it will be a mandatory exit for a few months first.

I missed the "second" listing for SR 173, I'll have to go back and review that document again... thanks for the info! I think NDOT intentionally kept US 93 documented on its present routing since it will remain there for most of 2018, until the scheduled October opening of Phase II. Just wish they would provide mileage breakouts at major junctions rather than at urban area limits (or in addition to them) on their State Maintained Highways list. It's difficult to compile a continuous milepoint breakdown for the various routes from the data as presented in its present format.

I just returned from a trip to the Vegas area for work, but unfortunately didn't have opportunity to do any roadgeeking down that way like I wanted.

Now that I'm thinking about it, and having an idea of the final configuration of the Hoover Dam interchange, I'm wondering if old US 93/future US 93 Business will be designated as an extension of SR 172 (whether signed or unsigned).

I agree with your sentiments on the NDOT SMH book. It is difficult to get accurate mileages of some US routes in Nevada because sections overlapping with another US route or Interstate are not called out separately.

I'm trying to nail down the situations with SR 172 and SR 173, for the Travel Mapping project. OpenStreetMap shows old US 95, between I-11 exit 14 and US 93 Business, as SR 173, consistent with NDOT's January 2018 SMH book. Have SR 173 route markers shown up on that stranded segment?

Also, OSM has SR 172 extended along US 93 Business, from 172's old west end at I-11 exit 2 to I-11 exit 15B. That had not become official by the time the January 2018 SMH book was prepared. Is the 172 extension for real, and have SR 172 route markers shown up on US 93 Business?

I'm trying to nail down the situations with SR 172 and SR 173, for the Travel Mapping project. OpenStreetMap shows old US 95, between I-11 exit 14 and US 93 Business, as SR 173, consistent with NDOT's January 2018 SMH book. Have SR 173 route markers shown up on that stranded segment?

Also, OSM has SR 172 extended along US 93 Business, from 172's old west end at I-11 exit 2 to I-11 exit 15B. That had not become official by the time the January 2018 SMH book was prepared. Is the 172 extension for real, and have SR 172 route markers shown up on US 93 Business?

As of Sunday, no and no. (Did both routes on a bicycle, so would have had plenty of time to see any new markers.)

I'm trying to nail down the situations with SR 172 and SR 173, for the Travel Mapping project. OpenStreetMap shows old US 95, between I-11 exit 14 and US 93 Business, as SR 173, consistent with NDOT's January 2018 SMH book. Have SR 173 route markers shown up on that stranded segment?

Also, OSM has SR 172 extended along US 93 Business, from 172's old west end at I-11 exit 2 to I-11 exit 15B. That had not become official by the time the January 2018 SMH book was prepared. Is the 172 extension for real, and have SR 172 route markers shown up on US 93 Business?

As of Sunday, no and no. (Did both routes on a bicycle, so would have had plenty of time to see any new markers.)

I'm guessing SR 173 will not be signed in the field. From US 93 Business north/west, the new BGS merely says "TO US 95 South - Searchlight". From US 95 north, I believe it says "TO US 93 Business - Boulder City".

There is currently no evidence that SR 172 was extended along US 93 Business, whether in the logs or in the field.

I don't think we're going to get a definitive answer on SR 172 until the next State Maintained Highways book comes out in January or February. I could see NDOT extending the designation, but it's also possible that they might relinquish the old route to Boulder City. Not all US business routes in Nevada are state maintained. For recent precedent, see Carson City post completion of the I-580 Carson City Bypass—old US 395 is now signed as a business route, but most of it has been relinquished Carson City and the rest is planned to be. (Old US 50 is also AASHTO-approved as a business route but not currently signed as such, and has also been reverted to local control.)

Even if SR 172 was extended along US 93 Business, NDOT probably won't sign the state route alongside the business route. See precedent of SR 362 in Hawthorne: cataloged and mileposted as SR 362 but signed as US 95 Truck.